Lenshttps://thelens.news
News in FocusThu, 21 Mar 2019 15:31:02 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=5.0.3Will low carbon fuel standard move forward?https://thelens.news/2019/03/21/will-low-carbon-fuel-standard-move-forward/
https://thelens.news/2019/03/21/will-low-carbon-fuel-standard-move-forward/#respondThu, 21 Mar 2019 15:29:15 +0000https://thelens.news/?p=16545Now that a state House bill creating a low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) has cleared that chamber, it remains to be seen whether its supporters will achieve similar success in the Senate. Testimony and comments on ESSHB 1110 during a Mar. 19 public hearing of the Senate Environment, Energy & Technology Committee underscored an ongoing […]

]]>Now that a state House bill creating a low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) has cleared that chamber, it remains to be seen whether its supporters will achieve similar success in the Senate. Testimony and comments on ESSHB 1110 during a Mar. 19 public hearing of the Senate Environment, Energy & Technology Committee underscored an ongoing debate over an LCFS’s impact on fuel and consumer prices and the implications that might have for other proposed legislation affecting gas costs.

At the Mar. 19 public hearing, Transportation Chair Steve Hobbs (D-44) told colleagues he is keeping an “open mind” about the proposal, “but this kind of scares me.” Hobbs has sponsored 10-year transportation funding package that would include a carbon fee and a $.06 gas tax increase to help pay for a new Interstate 5 bridge and repair hundreds of fish culverts being required as part of a court injunction.

However, increased gas prices could make it difficult for lawmakers to approve a gas tax increase to fund education. Hobbs cited a recent report by California’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, which concluded that the state’s partially-implemented LCFS has so far directly contributed to a $.16-cent increase to the price of gasoline per gallon, with an estimated $.46-cent increase to every gallon of fuel by 2030.

During testimony, Association of Washington Business Government Affairs Director Mike Ennis told the committee that “we can expect the same results in Washington.”

A similar argument was made by Carolyn Logue with the Washington Food industry Association, who said low profit margins for those businesses means consumer prices will go up if transportation costs increase. Ben Buchholz with Food Northwest said the program “represents a significant fiscal impact to the ag (agricultural) community.”

However, Committee Vice Chair Guy Palumbo (D-1) argued that market fluctuations cause a much greater impact on gas prices. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, California’s average regular gas prices between 2013-2019 have ranged from as high as $3.93 (2013) to as low as $2.72 (2016).

“How can you claim it’s (LCFS) going to hurt business?” Palumbo said.

Under ESSHB 1110 as currently written, the state Department of Ecology would create a clean fuel program with the goal of reducing the carbon intensity in fuels to 10 percent below 2017 levels by 2028 and 20 percent below 2017 levels by 2035. Entities participating in the program either voluntarily or required to do so would generate credits if they provide fuel below the standard. If they produce fuel above the standard, they must purchase credits from entities that generate a surplus. All participating entities would have to pay Ecology a fee to cover the program’s costs.

The bill also includes certain reporting requirements. The state Department of Commerce would have to publish periodic fuel supply forecasts estimating the availability of fuels and credits. The Joint Legislative Audit & Review Committee would have to submit an analysis on the first five years of the program by 2027.

Sponsor Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon (D-34) touted the program at the Mar. 19 public hearing as “a technology neutral standard” that unlike other similar policies allows entities to “find the most effective pathway toward reducing the greenhouse gas intensity of these fuels,” rather than require a certain mixture of clean fuels. He attributed improved air quality as one potential indirect benefit of reducing carbon intensity. According to Ecology’s Air Quality program, Washington state complies with all air pollution standards, but “there are several areas of concern that are being watched closely” for particle pollution.

Jessica Spiegel with Western States Petroleum Associations told committee members the LCFS proposal wouldn’t work due to “technical barriers. Advanced biofuels are needed, and they are not ready.”

Aside from whether an LCFS is practical, some lawmakers also emphasized transparency regarding the cost to consumers. Sen. Tim Sheldon (D-35) argued that people should be kept informed about how the program affects gas prices at the pump in a similar manner to the gas tax.

When asked by Sen. Phil Fortunato (R-31) about the estimated fuel increase by the program, Fitzgibbon replied that “unfortunately there’s not a satisfying answer to this question, because it’s a technology neutral standard. What we’re saying is find the cheapest and cleanest pathway toward these (fuel) productions.”

]]>https://thelens.news/2019/03/21/will-low-carbon-fuel-standard-move-forward/feed/0More regulations and taxes = affordable home ownership?https://thelens.news/2019/03/20/more-regulations-taxes-affordable-home-ownership/
https://thelens.news/2019/03/20/more-regulations-taxes-affordable-home-ownership/#respondWed, 20 Mar 2019 17:48:00 +0000https://thelens.news/?p=16539Legislators kicked off this year’s session in promising fashion, declaring they would take our state’s housing affordability crisis head on, as they should. A study by the University of Washington’s Center for Real Estate Research reports that first-time buyers in King, Kittitas, Pierce and Snohomish counties are facing a housing market where home prices are […]

]]>Legislators kicked off this year’s session in promising fashion, declaring they would take our state’s housing affordability crisis head on, as they should. A study by the University of Washington’s Center for Real Estate Research reports that first-time buyers in King, Kittitas, Pierce and Snohomish counties are facing a housing market where home prices are nearly double what they can afford.

Over the last 25 years, the housing supply in Washington has been restricted. Experts say housing supply in Washington now lags 20 percent behind what’s needed for our population. This lack of supply drives up the cost of all types of housing, including rental units.

However, at the half-way point of session, lawmakers have lost sight of the path to affordable homeownership and seem intent on driving home prices even higher with additional regulation, taxes and fees.

Among the proposals in front of legislators that will only increase the price of homes are: increasing the B&O tax on services, including those related to construction, and the establishment of a new capital gains income tax.

But wait, there is more. They’ve proposed creating an “environmental justice” task force (HB 2009 & SB 5489), composed of activists, that would circumvent existing law and allow a committee with a very skewed perspective to dictate how agencies grant land use permits and implement rules to ensure that no one, now or in the future, could possibly be “harmed” by the development.

They’ve proposed a graduated REET tax (HB 1921) and are unable to address the impact of substantially increasing the cost of land acquisition for housing. Such increases could push the dream of home ownership out of reach of many Washingtonians.

They are considering measures to allow local jurisdictions the authority to exceed the state energy codes (SB 5293), which would create a patchwork of new rules across the state and add unnecessary costs to the price of homes. Currently the state code is reviewed every three years, and we estimate that it alone adds $4,000-$6,000 on to the final price of a home.

Last but not least, they’ve proposed “direct contractor liability” (HB 1395), which would require a direct or general contractor to be responsible for the unpaid wages and benefits of subcontractors’ employees.

Despite a well-intentioned goal of addressing wage theft, SHB 1395 is the wrong approach. Not only is it against the law to not pay your employees, it’s unnecessary, as Labor and Industries already has the authority to enforce wage payment laws. If it needs more resources to carry out these responsibilities, it should let the Legislature know. It will raise the cost of housing and harm our state’s small entrepreneurs – subcontractors will be paid slower while general contractors pour over their payroll books, and new subcontractors will not be able to provide historical evidence of good business practices, making general contractors hesitant to work with new upcoming businesses. This is bad for Washington and bad for housing.

None of these proposals does a thing to add inventory to our housing market or bring a single option to the table to help make affordable homeownership a reality. Instead, each of them would add significant costs to the prices of new homes. We know that for every $1,000 the price of a new house increases, 2,393 Washingtonians are priced out of the new home market.

Lawmakers should instead be working to reform the state’s Growth Management Act (GMA) and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) to help land use and environmental policies work together instead of against each other. All too often, these regulations are used to delay new housing projects, adding to the price of each home or, even worse, stopping new housing options for Washingtonians.

The Legislature should also streamline planning and require local jurisdictions to do the right thing: promote housing ownership for everyone. Increased condos, multi-family, and single-family housing supply is the only path to affordability. Washingtonians want options and need affordability.

To that end, BIAW is proud to be part of “Unlock the Door,” a coalition of non-profit and business associations formed to help educate key leaders in our communities, working together to find home ownership opportunities for everyone in Washington state. To learn more about our efforts, visit: www.unlockthedoorwa.com.

Jan Himebaugh has worked for the Government Affairs Director for the Building Industry Association of Washington since 2012, and advocates for the advancement of affordable homeowners opportunities for Washington State.

]]>https://thelens.news/2019/03/20/more-regulations-taxes-affordable-home-ownership/feed/0Brokering statewide broadbandhttps://thelens.news/2019/03/20/brokering-statewide-broadband/
https://thelens.news/2019/03/20/brokering-statewide-broadband/#respondWed, 20 Mar 2019 16:03:32 +0000https://thelens.news/?p=16533Both state legislative chambers have approved bills intended to get high speed broadband internet to the approximately 450,000 Washington residents who still lack access. Now, stakeholders and lawmakers will have to reconcile differences between the two before a final proposal reaches Governor Jay Inslee’s desk. Those discrepancies were articulated at a Mar. 19 public hearing of […]

]]>Both state legislative chambers have approved bills intended to get high speed broadband internet to the approximately 450,000 Washington residents who still lack access. Now, stakeholders and lawmakers will have to reconcile differences between the two before a final proposal reaches Governor Jay Inslee’s desk.

Those discrepancies were articulated at a Mar. 19 public hearing of the House Innovation, Technology & Economic Development Committee. Some of the changes recommended by the state’s chamber of commerce is intended to prevent overlap between public and private sector infrastructure work.

SSSB 5511 sponsored by Sen. Lisa Wellman (D-41) would set up a state broadband office and create through the Public Works Board a competitive grant/loan program to finance broadband expansion projects. The bill also would allow public utility districts to provide temporary retail internet services, while authorizing port districts to offer wholesale internet services outside of their jurisdictions.

The bill passed the Senate on Mar. 6 in a 47-0 vote, with two senators excused. Its companion bill, HB 1498, sponsored by Innovation, Technology & Economic Development Committee Chair Zack Hudgins (D-11) cleared the House on Mar. 8 in a 95-1 vote.

The two bills differ in several sections regarding the priorities for the grant program and the Public Utility Districts. The Senate version allows the grant program to provide up to 90 percent of funding for a broadband project if it is located within an “economically distressed area.” The House version caps project funding at 50 percent or $2 million, but allows for 90 percent within “financially distressed counties.” The Senate version also includes an expert advisory panel set up by Public Works Board to review grant applications. The House bill gives that authority to the Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC), a provision favored by Inslee’s office.

“We believe UTC is fully capable of the work,” senior policy advisor for Inslee John Flanagan told the committee. He also recommended that the bill include HB 1498’s 50 percent cap on project funding, but allow for up to 90 percent and $5 million for certain communities, “recognizing the tribes are severely underfunded.”

Association of Washington Business Director of Government Affairs Mike Ennis told the committee that the association supports both the idea of a broadband office and grant program, but “we have some concerns over the lack of protections for overbuilding. We are dealing with a finite amount of money and every single dollar must count. We don’t want to waste money overbuilding service where the private sector has already provided it.”

HB 1498 is scheduled for a public hearing on Mar. 20 in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology.

]]>https://thelens.news/2019/03/20/brokering-statewide-broadband/feed/0Assessing “no man’s land”https://thelens.news/2019/03/19/assessing-no-mans-land/
https://thelens.news/2019/03/19/assessing-no-mans-land/#respondTue, 19 Mar 2019 19:40:46 +0000https://thelens.news/?p=16528An ongoing challenge for state and local firefighters is what’s known as “no man’s land”: areas that do not fall under a fire jurisdiction or are protected but do not pay the local levy to finance that district. A 2017 report by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) found that there are approximately […]

]]>An ongoing challenge for state and local firefighters is what’s known as “no man’s land”: areas that do not fall under a fire jurisdiction or are protected but do not pay the local levy to finance that district. A 2017 report by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) found that there are approximately 20,000 parcels that do not pay for fire protection they receive.

A bill recently approved by the state Senate and scheduled for executive action on Mar. 22 in a state House committee would set up a process for counties to approve the annexation of properties into a local fire district that are protected but do not pay the fee.

Sponsored by Senate Ways and Means Chair Christine Rolfes (D-23), SSB 5010 cleared the Senate on Feb. 15 in a 43-4 vote and is now awaiting approval by the House Committee on Local Government. At a Mar. 15 public hearing, Rolfes told colleagues the bill addresses very specific types of no man’s land already located completely within afire district, rather than land located outside of any jurisdiction. It’s a problem in parts of Kitsap County, located within her legislative district, where former forestland protected by the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has been developed and is now under the jurisdiction of local fire districts, but is not assessed the local levy.

As written, SSB 5010 would create a process for those fire districts to annex the areas that would require the county assessor’s involvement and a public hearing before approving a resolution that must then be approved by the county. The property owners would be allowed to appeal the fire district’s resolution to the county.

Central Kitsap Fire and Rescue Chief Jeff Sorenson told lawmakers at the public hearing that “those who pay their taxes subsidize those who do not.” The district has 10 fire stations that protect a quarter of the county. Within their jurisdiction there are 65 no man’s land areas, according to Sorenson.

Alex McCracken with Kitsap Firefighters Union Local 2819 argued that “when property owners knowingly are not paying their fair share for fire protection and are relying on their neighbors to pay for fire trucks, fuel ambulances and salaries, it doesn’t feel so good.”

The bill is also supported by Washington State Forester George Geissler, who was appointed to the position within DNR last year by Commissioner of Public Lands Hilary Franz. He told committee members “we feel it’s an important tool to address the unprotected lands in the state of Washington” that “essentially come off of DNR’s protected list and are not picked up within the fire district. This allows that to occur.”

Last year, the legislature approved HB 2561 directing the state Wildland Fire Advisory Committee to come up with recommendations on how to address no man’s land. DNR also provided some recommendations in its Wildland Fire Protection Strategic Plan for land outside fire district boundaries.

]]>https://thelens.news/2019/03/19/assessing-no-mans-land/feed/0Unanimous Senate vote on agricultural hemphttps://thelens.news/2019/03/19/unanimous-senate-vote-on-agricultural-hemp/
https://thelens.news/2019/03/19/unanimous-senate-vote-on-agricultural-hemp/#respondTue, 19 Mar 2019 15:00:04 +0000https://thelens.news/?p=16522Early last week, Senate lawmakers voted unanimously on ESSSB 5276 legalizing agricultural hemp production. If approved by the House and signed by Governor Jay Inslee, the bill would require the state Department of Agriculture (WSDA) to set up a commodity program to regulate the industry and submit a state regulatory plan to the U.S. Department […]

]]>Early last week, Senate lawmakers voted unanimously on ESSSB 5276 legalizing agricultural hemp production. If approved by the House and signed by Governor Jay Inslee, the bill would require the state Department of Agriculture (WSDA) to set up a commodity program to regulate the industry and submit a state regulatory plan to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

“This bill has been a long time coming,” Sen. Judy Warnick (R-13) told colleagues Mar. 12 on the House floor. “It’s a very interesting crop with lots of uses, and I think this bill is going to help the producers and all those involved in hemp and the marketing of hemp within the United States, within our state and even internationally.”

Hemp is used to produce a variety of items including rope and paper and was among the crops grown by President George Washington throughout his life. During World War II, the United States government heavily used hemp products and even produced a film titled “Hemp for Victory!” However, production ended in the 1950s, and was eventually added to the 1970 Federal Controlled Substances Act.

In 2014, President Barack Obama signed a new farm bill that allowed some states to conduct limited research programs on growing hemp. In 2016, the state legislature approved ESSB 6206 creating a research pilot through WSDA. In 2017, Washington lawmakers removed hemp from the Uniform Controlled Substances Act via HB 2064 sponsored by Rep. Matt Shea (R-4). Last year, Congress enacted the federal Agriculture Improvement Act, which among other things removed hemp from the Federal Controlled Substances Act.

Washington’s effort to allow industrial hemp comes after the successful legalization of marijuana, which contains tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) that gives the leaf its potency but is not found in hemp. In 1998, Washington voters approved Initiative 692 (I-692), allowing the use of medical marijuana for certain purposes; the law was amended in 2011 by the state legislature. In 2012, voters approved Initiative 502 (I-502) decriminalizing recreational marijuana, which is regulated through the state’s Liquor Control Board.

ESSSB 5276 has been referred to the House Commerce & Gaming Committee, but has not yet been scheduled for a public hearing.

]]>A Democrat proposal to boost housing within urban areas received bipartisan support in a 66-30 house vote on Mar. 13. SSHB 1923 sponsored by Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon (D-34) would direct cities under certain populations sizes and planning under the state Growth Management Act (GMA) to choose from a variety of options to increase housing capacity or update the zoning in their comprehensive plan updates. The bill is one of many introduced this session in both chambers seeking to encourage an increased housing supply to meet both existing and future demand that has already added to real estate and rental prices.

“As more and more people keep moving to our state, that’s’ great…but that has created a severe housing shortage that has impacted our constituents in a big way,” Fitzgibbon told colleagues.

“Building the supply of housing is at the center of what we need to do, and this bill sets the foundation for us to work together,” Rep. Nicole Marci (D-43).

Under SSHB 1923, cities with populations of 10,000 or less and subject to GMA must select two of several options by December 2022 that include:

Authorizing the developments within half a mile of a transit station that contain at least 50 residential units;

Requiring only one on-site parking space per two residential units in multi-family; housing if it’s located within half a mile of a light rail or bus rapid transit station; and

Allow accessory dwelling units on all lots within zoning that permit single family residences.

Any city that fails to do so by December 2022 would have to make certain revisions to the housing portion of its comprehensive plan update. They would also be ineligible for grant money from the Public Works Assistance Account, the Water Quality Capital Account or the Transportation Improvement Account until the requirements are met.

The bill received support from some Republican lawmakers including Rep. Matt Shea (R-4) who voted for it though he said there are “still some things that need to be done to alleviate concerns.”

Rep. Andrew Barkis (R-2) said the bill “gets at some of the core elements of the issue of supply. When we talk about the regulatory burdens, we talk about some of the things that prevent cities and local jurisdictions and builders to increase that supply, this is a bill that goes to that issue. Anything we can do to get at the supply of housing is a good move.”

]]>https://thelens.news/2019/03/18/lawmakers-embrace-urban-density-proposal/feed/1“For Washington to show leadership on climate change and build support for costly new carbon-reduction programs, the state must do a better job explaining how they’ll affect taxpayers.”https://thelens.news/2019/03/18/for-washington-to-show-leadership-on-climate-change-and-build-support-for-costly-new-carbon-reduction-programs-the-state-must-do-a-better-job-explaining-how-theyll-affect-taxpayers/
https://thelens.news/2019/03/18/for-washington-to-show-leadership-on-climate-change-and-build-support-for-costly-new-carbon-reduction-programs-the-state-must-do-a-better-job-explaining-how-theyll-affect-taxpayers/#respondMon, 18 Mar 2019 17:31:56 +0000https://thelens.news/?p=16520– Seattle Times editorial board

]]>https://thelens.news/2019/03/18/for-washington-to-show-leadership-on-climate-change-and-build-support-for-costly-new-carbon-reduction-programs-the-state-must-do-a-better-job-explaining-how-theyll-affect-taxpayers/feed/0Linking forest health projects with wildfireshttps://thelens.news/2019/03/18/linking-forest-health-projects-with-wildfires/
https://thelens.news/2019/03/18/linking-forest-health-projects-with-wildfires/#respondMon, 18 Mar 2019 16:14:00 +0000https://thelens.news/?p=16514In a unanimous 96-0 vote, the state House voted Mar. 13 in favor of SSHB 1784, which advocates say would create stronger links between forest health restoration work and wildfire fighting strategies. It is one of the few wildfire bills introduced in the House so far to have cleared the House Appropriations Committee. The bill […]

]]>In a unanimous 96-0 vote, the state House voted Mar. 13 in favor of SSHB 1784, which advocates say would create stronger links between forest health restoration work and wildfire fighting strategies. It is one of the few wildfire bills introduced in the House so far to have cleared the House Appropriations Committee. The bill also now includes the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) among its supporters after the state agency initially expressed concerns over restrictions and costs.

The intent of the bill is to use forest treatment projects as an opportunity to also create defensible corridors for firefighters arriving at the scene of a wildfire. Otherwise, firefighters have to either locate existing breaks or create them. Those breaks can range from a cleared area such as a Forest Service road or a place where fuel levels are significantly reduced.

They can also prevent wildfires from spreading. Following the devastating Paradise Fire in California last year, local residents are planning to build 25 miles of fuel breaks.

Prior to the March 13 House floor vote, sponsor Rep. Joel Kretz (R-7) told colleagues that the bill is an “attempt to make some progress on our forest health and fire problems we’ve had around the state. There’s not enough time or money to deal with everything we should be.”

“this is the kind of smart land management that we need in this state,” Cosponsor Rep. Brian Blake (D-19) said. “It will result in healthier forest and safer communities.”

Under SSHB 1784, DNR is directed to prioritize forest treatments that also create strategically-located fire breaks. According to Kretz, the bill is meant to complement the state agency’s 20-year Forest Health Strategic Plan.

Washington Forest Protection Association Director of Government Relations Jason Callahan told Lens that the bill will help maintain the connection between forest health work and wildfires as the state accelerates its work in that area. Although the state has increased funding for these projects, Callahan added that there are still limitations.

“You’ll never have enough (money) to do a whole forest,” he said. “It causes DNR to think about how it all goes hand in hand.”

While SSHB 1784 advances to the Senate, other wildfire bills introduced in the House are struggling to clear the Appropriations Committee. That includes HB 1940 intended to enhance initial fire attacks, HB 1188 allowing rangeland associations to fight wildfires, and HB 1958 creating a financial assistance program for rural fire districts that want to use aerial units during an initial fire attack.

]]>https://thelens.news/2019/03/18/linking-forest-health-projects-with-wildfires/feed/0House passes new “consent” bill for public worker unionshttps://thelens.news/2019/03/15/house-passes-new-consent-bill-for-public-worker-unions/
https://thelens.news/2019/03/15/house-passes-new-consent-bill-for-public-worker-unions/#respondFri, 15 Mar 2019 16:14:55 +0000https://thelens.news/?p=16510Earlier this week House lawmakers approved in a 57-41 vote SSHB 1575 in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) Janus ruling last year allowing public sector workers to avoid union membership dues. For detractors, the bill makes public unions akin to “Hotel California” – easy to get in, but not to get out. “We […]

]]>Earlier this week House lawmakers approved in a 57-41 vote SSHB 1575 in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) Janus ruling last year allowing public sector workers to avoid union membership dues.

For detractors, the bill makes public unions akin to “Hotel California” – easy to get in, but not to get out.

“We should be looking at this like a business model,” Rep. Vicki Kraft (R-17) told colleagues. “None of us would pay for a service unless we were truly getting value.”

Last year, SCOTUS’s Janus ruling overturned 22 state laws requiring state employees pay public unions a representation fee, even if they aren’t members. The majority opinion states that unions must obtain “affirmative consent” from workers in order to deduct from their paychecks. That ruling also ostensibly overturned a Washington state law passed last year creating an affirmative opt-out policy.

SSHB 1575, sponsored by Majority Floor Leader Monica Jurado Stonier (D-49), allows unions to obtain “written, electronic, or recorded voice authorization” for membership from workers. However, workers who want to opt out must do so in writing and under whatever restrictions or stipulations are created by the union as part of the membership agreement. The bill also states that a public employer must determine a worker’s membership from the union only. One of many rejected amendments would have required that employers receive written authorization by the worker before deducting union dues, while another failed amendment would have had the employer rather than the union obtain authorization from the worker.

The bill also creates legal immunity for all public agencies and unions who might be sued by workers to recover dues paid prior to Janus. A union would also have exclusive bargaining representation rights if it garners 50 percent rather than 70 percent of employees’ support for certain types of public workers. The companion bill is SB 5623 sponsored by Sen. Kevin Van De Wege (D-24), which has been placed on seconding reading in the Rules Committee.

While Rep. Mike Sells (D-38) described SSHB 1575 as “a fair way to operate with those organizations,” Rep. Jeremie Dufault (R-15) told colleagues that the bill would create “mousetraps” for workers who may not realize what they are agreeing to under the membership terms.

“This bill directly undermines the Constitution of the United States,” he added. “If they want to join a union, they agree to do so. If any of those groups or individuals do not wish to participate, then they also have a right….to not participate.”

Washington Policy Center Small Business Director Erin Shannon told Lens that the ability to obtain “consent” from workers by voice recording creates ambiguity. “Without seeing things in writing, how can workers really understand what they are agreeing to? You don’t know what these union representatives are going to say on the phone.”

Others argued that the bill sets up legal risks for state agencies in the event that they deduct dues at the behest of a union that failed to obtain the worker’s consent. A rejected amendment would have allowed those public employers to be immune from “all claims, demands, suits, or other forms of liability.”

In a statement, Freedom Foundation Director of Labor Policy Maxford Nelsen said a lawsuit is likely if the bill is passed, calling it “an exercise of raw political power that only benefits government unions and the politicians whose campaigns will benefit from the dues seized from public employees’ wages. There is simply no legitimate justification for permitting unions’ use of unethical and coercive tactics to take money from public employees.”

The bill has been referred to the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee.

]]>https://thelens.news/2019/03/15/house-passes-new-consent-bill-for-public-worker-unions/feed/0LCFS proposal advances from Househttps://thelens.news/2019/03/14/lcfs-proposal-advances-from-house/
https://thelens.news/2019/03/14/lcfs-proposal-advances-from-house/#respondThu, 14 Mar 2019 15:00:00 +0000https://thelens.news/?p=16505After a lengthy debate on Mar. 12 that included over half a dozen amendments added to the bill, state House lawmakers voted 53-43 in favor of SSHB 1110 creating a low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) in Washington state. The bill is one of several introduced as part of Governor Jay Inslee’s “green plan” he unveiled […]

]]>After a lengthy debate on Mar. 12 that included over half a dozen amendments added to the bill, state House lawmakers voted 53-43 in favor of SSHB 1110 creating a low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) in Washington state. The bill is one of several introduced as part of Governor Jay Inslee’s “green plan” he unveiled last year to reduce Washington’s greenhouse gases that compose roughly .02 percent of total global emissions.

While supporters argue the program will reduce carbon emissions generated by the transportation sector and create new clean energy jobs, critics in the House emphasized the impact to fuel prices as seen in states such as California that have partially implemented an LCFS program.

If approved by the Senate as written, SSHB 1110 sponsored by Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon (D-34) tasks the state Department of Ecology to create a LCFS program to bring the carbon intensity in fuels 10 percent below 2017 levels by 2028, and 20 percent below 2017 levels by 2035. The program would include a credit system in which entities that provide fuels with carbon intensities above the standard would run deficits and must purchase credits from entities that offer “clean” biofuels. Certain types of fuel such as aviation fuel would be exempt.

Fitzgibbon told colleagues that “we have an opportunity to move toward cleaner fuels” produced by entities such as the Renewable Energy Group at its Hoquiam plant.

“We have the opportunity to clean our air,” he added.

Prior to the House vote, legislators approved nine amendments. Among those revisions are the following changes:

Exempts dyed special fuels used for agricultural purpose from LCFS program requirements until 2028, but eligible to earn credits;

Requires electricity produced by hydroelectric dams to be credit under the program if used as a transportation fuel;

Requires Ecology consider land use changes when determining carbon intensity of sugar cane fuel; and

Requires Ecology hire an independent consultant to perform an annual estimate of the costs or savings per gallon of gasoline attributable to the clean fuel program; that report would be submitted to both Transportation Committees.

However, Republican lawmakers were unsuccessful in adding other amendments, such as one introduced by Rep. Drew Stokesbary (R-31) that would have required the state Office of Financial Management (OFM) to analyze the financial impact of the LCFS program on state agencies due to increased fuel prices at the beginning of each biennium before further carbon intensity reductions could occur. Another rejected amendment sponsored by Assistant Minority Floor Leader Morgan Irwin (R-31)would have required voter approval for the program to move forward.

“There is no reason the people should not be able to decide if they want to pay an increase in gas,” Minority Floor Leader Jacquelin Maycumber (R-7) told colleagues.

Although only partially implemented, California’s LCFS program has already raised the price of gasoline by $.16 per gallon and could raise it $.46 by 2030. In contrast, the fuel price increase by Oregon’s LCFS program has been negligible.

However, Washington Policy Center Environmental Director Todd Myers told Lens that’s because Oregon’s program has just started. “It won’t be true over time.”

Another amendment sponsored by Rep. Brandon Vick (R-17) concerned a separate contention some opponents have. The 2015 Connecting Washington package contains a provision regarded as an implicit prohibition on an LCFS program prior to 2023. That provision in state law would be altered under SSHB 1110 and the rejected amendment would have restored it.

While business groups such as the Association of Washington Business (AWB) say the LCFS proposal has lawmakers going back on their word, Rep. Jake Fey (D-27) argued during the Mar. 12 House floor discussion that as one of the negotiators for the transportation package he interpreted it as a restriction on the governor’s ability to adopt the program via executive order as was done with the clean air rule.

Myers says the discussion on environment policy should be on reducing emissions overall and not limited to one sector. “If we use gasoline from now until 2100, but we have more hybrids, more electric vehicles, more telecommuting, then it doesn’t matter if we reduce the carbon intensity (in fuels) at all. We’re going to reduce emissions. The effective way to reduce C02 emissions is to do everything.”